Those <500 counties were Hitlerey won would include the area around Washington, DC, which boast the highest income in North America. Those counties produce nothing, feed no one, provide no service to the public.

It's a giant sucking black hole of bureaucrats. lobbyists, and regulators who suck the life out of working class white folks.

Those <500 counties were Hitlerey won would include the area around Washington, DC, which boast the highest income in North America. Those counties produce nothing, feed no one, provide no service to the public.

It's a giant sucking black hole of bureaucrats. lobbyists, and regulators who suck the life out of working class white folks.

The only people who are exploited by these bureaucrats are those who actually pay federal taxes to support them without taking equivalent value in return. This rules out most of the red states in the South and the flyover country. And unless somebody confiscates the agricultural products in these states, there is no basis for any resident there to believe that he is exploited by the democrats of the western and eastern coast.

Moreover, it is funny how the states who produce "nothing" have to subsidize through federal taxes the states who produce the "actual" wealth. California consistently has to give "nothing" in terms of dollars to rednecks in republican states of the South or in the flyover country who produce the "real" wealth and still cannot live without federal and mostly "blue states'" subsidizes. Not only that, but these red moochers in "right to work" states legislate conditions of very low minimum wages which makes it impossible for many of their residents to pay any federal income tax. Why do you think almost half of the US households do not pay federal taxes? It is because red moochers have found it convenient to accept the blue state subsidies to fund the so called "freedom to work" with very low wages in their state.

For complicated reasons — some of which have to do with rural poverty, some of which have to do with the basic physics of supporting infrastructure in low-density regions — a disproportionate amount of per capita federal spending and benefits now flow down to the low-density states. According to a study by the Tax Foundation conducted several years ago, for every dollar New Jersey pays in federal taxes, it receives 61 cents in benefits and other federal spending. For the same dollar of taxes Wyoming spends, it gets $1.11 back.

Put those two trends together and you have a grievance worthy of the original Tea Party: more taxation with less representation. The urban states are subsidizing the rural states, and yet somehow in return, the rural states get more power at the voting booth.

You can represent the injustice of this arrangement mathematically. Think of it as two different kinds of return on investment: how much does each state receive for every dollar it pays in taxes, and how much Electoral College influence does each state get for each vote cast. Take the average of those two data points and you have a measure of which states are getting shortchanged by the system. Call it the disenfranchisement index.

The states that rank at the top of this list are the ones that are paying the highest proportion of the country’s bills while ranking lowest in terms of voting power in the Electoral College. The first 12 on the list have all voted for the Democratic candidate in at least two of the last three elections, and all but two of them went for Mrs. Clinton in 2016: New Jersey, Minnesota, Illinois, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, Wisconsin, Michigan, Connecticut, California, Washington and Oregon.

Those states make up the overwhelming majority of Hillary Clinton’s Electoral College support in 2016. They are also paying billions of dollars of taxes and receiving only a fraction back in benefits and other federal spending. By contrast, 19 of the 25 most empowered (and largely rural) states went for Mr. Trump.

The gap between the two extremes is remarkable. South Dakota, one of the most empowered states in the country, received almost twice the return on taxes as California, the country’s most populated state, while also commanding nearly twice as much power per capita in the Electoral College. If anyone should be declaring themselves the heirs to the Boston patriots who rebelled against the unjust taxation of King George, it’s the big city blue state citizens who are funding a system that by law undercounts their votes.

You have confused output with GDP. It's a common enough mistake so you should not feel too bad about it. It's the kind of thing PhD economists routinely get wrong.

Quite.

People think that just repackaging the same shit and selling it back and forth endlessly is somehow good for economy.

Having two people who sell insurances to each other is somehow good for economy? It bumps up the GDP nicely. Especially if you then create products out of the insurances that were sold and resell them.

It doesn't feed anyone and doesn't produce anything anyone needs.

And there's a lot of that sort of shit that no one really needs that is the heart of the "post industrial service industry", aka. "cities built upon not producing a thing" while the ones that produce getting the shortest straw by default.

The only people who are exploited by these bureaucrats are those who actually pay federal taxes to support them without taking equivalent value in return. This rules out most of the red states in the South and the flyover country.

Actually, that is incorrect. As I noted, you're not the first to fall for that sort of deception. The error in your logic lies in the assumption that the only expenditures that "count" in your calculus of "who pays and who benefits" are entitlements. Entitlements are a large expense, to be sure, but they're not the greatest portion of the budget, which is these days the DoD. The US Department of Defense expenditures MOSTLY serve the interests of very wealthy people. Making the world a safer, more stable place for manufacturers to OFFSHORE production to Malaysia, Indonesia, or China, directly harms the American middle class and lower class, and benefits only the very wealthy in the USA. Likewise, defending Europe harms the American middle class.

And the harm is magnified of course by the fact that the American expenditures on these things are direct subsidies to foreign economies, but also that the foreign nations so subsidized actually pay much lower proportions of their GDPs into defense than they otherwise would have to spend; so that means that those nations have artificially low tax burdens related to defense spending. The classic examples are the continental European NATO states that largely spend less than half of what they agreed to, and in truth less than 20% of what they would HAVE to spend to defend themselves if the USA were to refuse to carry their water for them.

The only Americans that benefit from stabilization overseas are very wealthy Americans who own assets overseas, who rely on overseas manufacturing to enhance their profit margins on imports, and who stash money offshore rather than repatriating it, paying taxes on it, and using it to invest in the United States.

I thought Hitlerey was the champion of the working class. But her most devoted supporters hang out at yacht clubs.

Shoveling the Pamak shit aside, the blue state revenue comes from the hated corporations and the racists who run them; white people who build stuff and feed people. Corporate headquarters tend to be located in big cities.

When racists need money, they gots to build shit or provide a service. Liberals tax the air.

I thought Hitlerey was the champion of the working class. But her most devoted supporters hang out at yacht clubs.

Shoveling the Pamak shit aside, the blue state revenue comes from the hated corporations and the racists who run them; white people who build stuff and feed people. Corporate headquarters tend to be located in big cities.

When racists need money, they gots to build shit or provide a service. Liberals tax the air.

Nobody said anything about Hillary or corporations. I am talking about the regular middle class Californian who subsidizes moochers like you and others in the South and the flyover country. Plus, as the article above mentioned, we have a system in which the people who have less representation pay more taxes than the people who have higher representation. You live in low population density states (meaning much more affordable rent or housing) which in theory should put you in a much better position, and you still suck money from the expensive, high population density states. You create a low wage working class with your "right to work" laws and depressed state minimum wages and the result is that you do not have a wide enough base to pay federal taxes to cover your own fucking expenses. You expect from the people of the blue states to subsidize your ass...

This is not an argument. it is simply denial similar to the one of a five year old who refuses to accept the realities of the world. I gave the numbers. The socialist California subsidizes the supposedly "independent" non socialist rednecks in much of the South and the flyover country.

And to verify my previous words about the redneck fuckers, this happened today:

Boeing’s roughly 3,175 union-eligible production and maintenance workers in North Charleston have seen their paychecks rise by 30.3 percent since 2013 — to an average of $23 per hour, according to the company.

That rate is about 35 percent less than $31.04 an hour that workers represented by the International Association of Machinists make at Boeing’s other Dreamliner plant in Everett, Wash. Even with Everett’s higher cost of living, workers there are making more money doing similar jobs.

Obviously, better paid middle class workers have the ability pay more federal taxes. And this has consequences...

If you look only at the first measure—how much the federal government spends per person in each state compared with the amount its citizens pay in federal income taxes—other states stand out, particularly South Carolina: The Palmetto State receives $7.87 back from Washington for every $1 its citizens pay in federal tax. This bar chart, made from Wallet Hub's data, reveals the sharp discrepancies among states on that measure.

I've worked on the minimum wage - it was about £800 a month at the time, and the G took about £150 in tax directly, before VAT.

There's much talk of subsidising the poor, but aside from the basics, like infrastructure, there's no way on earth the G was subsidising me personally. On the other hand I know benefits chavsters on £30k a year, and people coining in even more on tax credits who you would think are middle class by looking and talking to them, rather than the benefits chavsters they actually are.

No doubt they are all in the bottom quintile for statistical purposes, but that state largesse is not distributed evenly, to put it mildly. The poor who are actually working poor generally get fuck all though. Doesn't take many chavsters on 30k of benefit to make the stats look very bad for that economic group though.

_________________“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum